How many victims?

[Harry D]

Good post , Agree with one Murderer and the Five victims, and the killer having been responsible for the organs being removed .

Do you also agree with Tumblety having help to lure the victims to their doom? Sounds kinda farfetched to me

[FISHY1118]

Good post , Agree with one Murderer and the Five victims, and the killer having been responsible for the organs being removed .

[Whitechapel]

This argument/debate is going around in circles like the debate between Trevor and David Orsam over when Tumblety was placed in custody. Like that debate the evidence is open to interpretation and in both cases Trevor forces the evidence to the limit.

In the case of Kelly's missing heart, the newspapers are contradictory and in the case of The Times, 2 reports contradicting each other over 2 days on the 12th and 13th November.

Documentary evidence always has to be treated as a special case because you have to look at the context. My background is archaeology, so I prefer to look at Kelly's room, that resembled an abbatoir and her body had been reduced to jelly. The idea that all the organs could be stitched back together and the body made whole again is fanciful. We already know that remaining body parts were collected in a bucket. I think this is the source of the confusion in the papers, in that they didn't know what they had (ie what was in the bucket) and they couldn't say whether the heart was there or not.

Either way I don't think it matters, if you excuse the pun because the heart is a red herring. The evidence is that the Ripper was interested in uteri (not the heart) that were removed from 2 other victims and this should have been the focus of the Ripper with Kelly, but when given the opportunity of a room rather than the street, he indulged himself and satisfaction was gained not from souvenir harvestting uteri or other organs but the mutilation and desecration of a woman.

My argument for the Ripper being the murderer of Nichols, Chapman,Stride, Eddowes and Kelly is that they all had their throats cut and this MO was used to reduce blood spray and to kill the victims quickly so organs could be harvested. There is also a pattern to the murders at the end of the month and 8th or 9th, they were all prostitutes killed in a small geographical area around Whitechapel and they were all mutilated after death. The double event describes the limit of mutilation on Stride because the Ripper was disturbed and the excessive mutilation of Kelly is explained by the body being found in a private room not the street, where the Ripper could indulge himself.

In order for Trevor's theory to fit, then there would have had to have been multliple serial killers and a rogue mortician also harvesting organs. It was not the view of the Police at the time and if anything over time the view is that there were more victims not less, killed by one serial killer.

My view has not changed that Tumblety was the Ripper, with his hatred of women, collection of uteri and his presence in Whitechapel at the time and we know this because he was arrested on indecency charges and the watching of Euston station for a quack doctor. I know a 6 foot Tumbelty does not match the description of who some of the victims were last seen with but I think Tumbelty had help luring the women into vulnerable positions.

I think the sub text of a lot of Trevor's arguments are to discredit Tumblety with his dispute over when he was in custody and whether organs were even harvested. In the custody case the evidence is ambiguous because there is no absolute proof when Tumblety was in custody just supposition (you would need the prison records for that). In the case of the missing organs the newspapers are contradictory but the post mortems say for 2 of the victims uteri were removed and this is why Trevor has to look to his rogue morticians theory as to why they were not present at the post mortems. I consider it highly unlikely given the high profile of the case that any mortician would have attempted this, when there would have been easier less high profile bodies to harvest organs from, that hadn't been messed about with.

The bottom line is that without DNA evidence, no one can say for sure who murdered these women and who mutilated them, so ultimately all you are left with, is my guess is as good as yours.

[FISHY1118]

"Confidently Asserted"

[JeffHamm]

Seems like for some, Newspaper acticles are getting peoples theories into some bother

Just like over on Schwartzsland.

The newspapers contain a lot of contradictory reports. Even if the overall gist of two or more newspaper stories are similar, they often get specific details wrong when compared to police reports and other official documents, and even differ between each other. It is one of the things that leads to different interpretations because at some point one has to either disregard the newspapers altogether, in which case one is left with almost no information to work with, or one has to try and work out what aspects reported in the news reflect reality and fliter out the erroneous bits. And at that point one is, or should be, worried that they've made a mistake in that filtering process. Anything only mentioned in the news, for which there is no official corresponding information, should be viewed with extreme caution as there's nothing more reliable to compare with. Personally, I view memoirs as unreliable for details, prone to exaggeration and egos, although they may be a window to the broader general atmosphere of the time but even that is suspect, as our memory of events from years ago are highly coloured by the intervening years of experience and our thoughts today. Others see them as invaluable sources of untainted information. Clearly, we'll filter information from them differently.

This is why different people can look at the same collection of information and come to diametrically opposed ideas; they effectively apply different filters and so are left drawing conclusions from different subsets of the total evidence. (I hesitate to use the word "evidence" with respect to newspapers, but I'm only using it here in reference to the information we draw upon to access 1888 and I'm not equating it to what would be admissible in court, or what would have guided the police at the time). The catch 22 is, of course, if you don't apply a filter, the information ends up contradicting itself, and so no conclusion at all can be drawn.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

The Times effectively retracted that statement the next day:

From The Times, Nov 13, 1888:
"...The examination of the body by Dr. Phillips on Saturday lasted upwards of six-and-a-half hours. Notwithstanding reports to the contrary, it is still confidently asserted that some portions of the body of the deceased woman are missing."

- Jeff

I am fully aware of this and other articles but there is no getting away from Insp Reids interview in which he states that no organs were taken away, and I personally am going to go with that interview and the newspapers articles that corroborate what he said. After all we have a police witness who was involved in the case against an ambiguos statement made by Dr Brown. Its a no brainer !!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

Seems like for some, Newspaper acticles are getting peoples theories into some bother

Just like over on Schwartzsland.

[JeffHamm]

The Times effectively retracted that statement the next day:

From The Times, Nov 13, 1888:
"...The examination of the body by Dr. Phillips on Saturday lasted upwards of six-and-a-half hours. Notwithstanding reports to the contrary, it is still confidently asserted that some portions of the body of the deceased woman are missing."

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Are you any relation to the Trevor Marriott who’s always telling us to place no reliance in anything printed in the press? ;-)

The same, but you misquote me what I say is that it is unsafe, but in this case there is corroboration to what is printed in the press, and that comes from Insp reid who was head of Whietchapel CID and who visited the crime scene and he later gave a live interview with a reporter so as far as evidence is concerned that interview is prime evidence whereas many newspaper reports of the day relating to these murders are secondary evidence.

There are also several other newspapers of the day that carried the same report one being

The Times 12th November

“As early as half past 7 on Saturday morning, Dr. Phillips, assisted by Dr. Bond (Westminster), Dr. Gordon Brown (City), Dr. Duke (Spitalfields) and his (Dr. Phillips') assistant, made an exhaustive post-mortem examination of the body at the mortuary adjoining Whitechapel Church. It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing. At the first examination, which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case. The examination was most minutely made, and lasted upwards of 2 ½ hours after which the mutilated portions were sewn to the body, and therefore the coroner's jury will be spared the unpleasant duty of witnessing the horrible spectacle presented to those who discovered the murder. The ashes found in the fireplace of the room rented by the deceased woman were also submitted to a searching examination, but nothing likely to throw any light on this shocking case could be gleaned from them.”

So if the same killer killed Chapman and Eddowes why did he not take away any organs? because he had the chance to remove the whole bodily organs. or was it the case that it was the same killer but he did not take away the organs from Chapman and Eddowes?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

Further corroboration from the South Wales Daily News 14 November 1888 to the Insp Reids interview with the NOW in which he states no organs were taken from Mary kelly by her killer posted by Chris Phillips on forums



www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Are you any relation to the Trevor Marriott who’s always telling us to place no reliance in anything printed in the press? ;-)

[Trevor Marriott]

Heart missing + not in the room = taken away (it’s that simple Trevor.)

Further corroboration from the South Wales Daily News 14 November 1888 to the Insp Reids interview with the NOW in which he states no organs were taken from Mary kelly by her killer posted by Chris Phillips on forums

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

Paul Simon - You Can Call Me Al (Official Video) - YouTube

[caz]

Cheers Al Bundy's Eyes. Or can I call you Al?

With my tongue only slightly in my cheek...

To extend the point further, if the Dear Boss author had signed off as 'Womb Raider', would we now be excluding all but Chapman and Eddowes from his tally?

Peter Sutcliffe typically used a hammer and/or his hands, so the Yorkshire Ripper was hardly the most fitting trade name, yet he saw no reason to try to live up to his public image as a late 20th century Jack.

I think, when not ruling out Stride as one of Jack the Throat Slitter's victims, one could make an argument for or against the Dear Boss letter being a hoax. If it was, then the throat slitter didn't know he was meant to rip every time, to rise to 21st century expectations, and messed up in Dutfield's Yard.

If the letter was genuine, then by giving himself the trade name of Ripper, he would soon have a public image to keep up, and one could view his Saucy Jacky postcard as an apologetic postscript to explain why a second victim had to die that night. One could speculate that he was making up for the first, by taking two specific body parts from Eddowes, who didn't have two wombs, but a kidney would do nicely as a consolation prize. Kate and kidney pie would at least be edible, and serve as a takeaway if he arrived home a bit peckish.

Have a splendid weekend, Al.

Love,

Caz
X

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I have just caught up with this thread and agree with Gordon that the ripper's 'primary intention' seemed to be to destroy his victims, with the trophy taking secondary, if and when the circumstances allowed, but equally if and when he felt like doing so. I'm not sure if he ever went out with his knife determined to try and remove or take away body parts, never mind a specific organ. Just because he could, it doesn't follow that he always would, given half a chance. It seems to me that it's a common mistake to judge the number of ripper victims, based on an assumption that the killer who removed and took away body parts would have been compelled to do so whenever he committed murder, and would only have attacked a woman for that express purpose. Others exclude victims from the ripper's tally using the degree of mutilation or lack of it. When the killer of Nichols and Chapman earned himself the nickname Jack the Ripper, Stride had not yet been murdered, and the nickname had yet to be made public, but the argument goes that because she was not actually ripped, then Jack the Ripper didn't kill her. It's as if he is expected to have lived up to a nickname, which, if he didn't give it to himself, he didn't even know about at the time. Had the author signed himself Jack the Throat Slitter, the same killer would not have let anyone down if he slit Stride's throat and left her unripped, with all her body parts present and intact.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

That's a fair point.

I'd say "to be fair", but you've previously extracted the micturate over that phrase, so I'll go with "a fair point". Which it is.

[caz]

I'm unclear where there’s any credible evidence that the Ripper had nine or ten victims. That’s taking speculation a very long way. Unless I'm misunderstanding something.

More to the point, some serial killers certainly can change their MO. A notable example was that latter-day Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe. He changed his method of murder from bashing on the head with a hammer to strangulation. Admittedly he bashed Marguerite Walls on the head before strangling her, but when he attacked Dr. Uphadya Bandara he began his assault by trying to strangle her--an attack that she luckily survived. That’s a radical change in MO--and very late in his series of murders, too, when we’d expect an MO to be firmly established. It threw the police for a loop because they failed to connect these crimes with his other murders. Plus these victims weren’t prostitutes, but very respectable women. Sutcliffe started seeing every woman as a “prostitute” in the end, whether she was or not.

Compared with that, taking or not taking body organs is a minor variation. I would say the Ripper’s primary intention was to hack, destroy, and mutilate, driven by insane hatred. Taking body organs as trophies was a secondary motive that occurred to him along the way. In any case he was developing his MO as he went along, and no doubt ran short of time on more than one occasion, so variations in what he did to his victims were to be expected. I’d be very surprised to hear if he was a cookie-cutter killler who succeeded in doing precisely the same thing to all of his victims.

I have just caught up with this thread and agree with Gordon that the ripper's 'primary intention' seemed to be to destroy his victims, with the trophy taking secondary, if and when the circumstances allowed, but equally if and when he felt like doing so. I'm not sure if he ever went out with his knife determined to try and remove or take away body parts, never mind a specific organ. Just because he could, it doesn't follow that he always would, given half a chance. It seems to me that it's a common mistake to judge the number of ripper victims, based on an assumption that the killer who removed and took away body parts would have been compelled to do so whenever he committed murder, and would only have attacked a woman for that express purpose. Others exclude victims from the ripper's tally using the degree of mutilation or lack of it. When the killer of Nichols and Chapman earned himself the nickname Jack the Ripper, Stride had not yet been murdered, and the nickname had yet to be made public, but the argument goes that because she was not actually ripped, then Jack the Ripper didn't kill her. It's as if he is expected to have lived up to a nickname, which, if he didn't give it to himself, he didn't even know about at the time. Had the author signed himself Jack the Throat Slitter, the same killer would not have let anyone down if he slit Stride's throat and left her unripped, with all her body parts present and intact.

Love,

Caz
X